400,000 tons of weapons collected, half of them have been destroyed

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah...that's what I think.


:roll:

I hope that roll eyes was an exaggeration. Because your in the weapons thread talking about how the Bush administration failed to secure the 380 tons and terrorists are probably using it on people. Seems to me your changing your mind just to bash bush.

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: conjur
Go ahead and attack the messenger and avoid the message. Typical m.o. of a Bush-God fanboi.

And pushing these laws for security? WTF? I guess you'd have fit right in goose-step in 1930s Germany.

Want more secrecy?

http://www.latimes.com/news/op...coll=la-home-utilities

"It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a cia report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names
"names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the cia was completed in June, it has not been made
"available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner
before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is
potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in
terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence
Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be
delivered. "We believe that the cia has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

The patriot act was approved by congress, yes congress that lets the government essentially have more access to information about you. Although this may not be fair, it was approved by congress for security reasons.

This still doesn't prove they are the most secretive in history. Which was your point right? You can't prove it. I never attacked you either, I said your exaggerating to bash Bush. And I did address your message, unless you skipped my entire post. A small group of democrats released a document saying the Bush administration was secretive when a good portion of these laws were approved by congress. Atleast concering those laws that just proves congress want's to be secretive. Security and intelligence always becomes more secure under war. Especially this type of war. Notice a lot of these went into effect after 9/11? Do you think Kerry is going to re-roll all of these laws? Oh wait you don't know, because Kerry doesn't TALK! Maybe I should go to his website and find out.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah...that's what I think.


:roll:

More than 400000 tons? less than 400000tons??

The only shooting the messenger is yourself.

But then what do you expect from a proven liar.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

Statements from people in the administration? An administration proven to be the most secretive and deceptive in history? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off for the next 15 minutes.

Yet you believe a random news report. You choose what you want to believe. And there is no proof this administration has been secretive either. Thats just an OPINION. Do me a favor and find me a news report that says this :

An administration proven to be the most secretive and deceptive in history?

Good luck with your proof.

:Q :Q :Q


WTF?


Have you been living under a rock for the last four years???


Seriously, have you?



Start reading

ABC's Sam Donaldson talks at Albion College

?I think (the White House press corps) is trying to do a good job,? he said. ?This president is the most secretive president in my lifetime. Presidents or politicians or people have to try to actually answer the questions.?

John Dean, part of the Nixon administration, called the Bush admin's secrecy "Worse than Watergate" and wrote a book with that same title about it.

Hmm so since Bush wont talk to a guy at ABC the administration is hiding secrets from everyone. Bush has done many more interviews than kerry has done. Bush isn't afraid to answer questions unlike Kerry it seems. Kerry wont even go on interviews dont by certain democrats. This guy could be considered JUST as secretive. Another example of you wanting to believe something. That secrecy report is done by a democratic group, and even this doesn't prove your point.

An administration proven to be the most secretive and deceptive in history?

Who's to say they aren't pushing these laws due to security? Whats even funny, is a good portion of those laws were enacted by congress! Bush cannot force congress to vote a certain way. I'm not suprised people can't take you serioulsy conjur. You go to great lengths to exaggerate any negativity towards bush.

The idea that the Bush administration is in any way open is simply false propaganda. Bush signed an executive order to seal papers from the Reagan adminstration through his, hopefully, one term.

Critics Blast Bush Order on Papers

Bush has had the fewest press conferences of any president in memory. Touting his openess in doing interviews with a compliant press, which amount to no more than free campaign commercials, while Bush is ducking press conferences and excluding follow-up questions is hypocirsy defined.

Bush's news conferences are scripted.

Scripted Press Conferences and the Lapdog Media

Here are a few lines from his last press conference. Notice the White House site doesn't include the date. It was April 14, 2004.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...04/04/20040413-20.html

[]Let's see --

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a minute. Oh, Jim.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: I've got some "must calls," I'm sorry.


[]Bush reading from list on podium, "Let's see here. Judy."


And the infamous,

[]Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: "I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet."


Bush has had just 15 solo news conferences during his presidency. But he's had plenty of interviews?

That's funny. :laugh:

Let's not forget, the Bush administration has a history of distortion. For example: IRAQ.

Did George W. Bush Invade Iraq by Lying?

This administration is secretive and deceptive at a level never seen in any administration in U.S. history.
I cannot fathom the willingness of so many Americans to simply accept their propaganda.
Please, America, come back from Bushworld and recognize the facts.

This is indeed "An administration proven to be the most secretive and deceptive in history."

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

There's no proof that 380 tons is missing either but you leap to believe that.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: conjur
Go ahead and attack the messenger and avoid the message. Typical m.o. of a Bush-God fanboi.

And pushing these laws for security? WTF? I guess you'd have fit right in goose-step in 1930s Germany.

Want more secrecy?

http://www.latimes.com/news/op...coll=la-home-utilities

"It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a cia report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names
"names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the cia was completed in June, it has not been made
"available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner
before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is
potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in
terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence
Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be
delivered. "We believe that the cia has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

The patriot act was approved by congress, yes congress that lets the government essentially have more access to information about you. Although this may not be fair, it was approved by congress for security reasons.

This still doesn't prove they are the most secretive in history. Which was your point right? You can't prove it. I never attacked you either, I said your exaggerating to bash Bush. And I did address your message, unless you skipped my entire post. A small group of democrats released a document saying the Bush administration was secretive when a good portion of these laws were approved by congress. Atleast concering those laws that just proves congress want's to be secretive. Security and intelligence always becomes more secure under war. Especially this type of war. Notice a lot of these went into effect after 9/11? Do you think Kerry is going to re-roll all of these laws? Oh wait you don't know, because Kerry doesn't TALK! Maybe I should go to his website and find out.

The Patriot Act was forced through a Republican led Congress by a Republican led administration. Do you think people just forget what happened? Any Congressperson who opposed the Patriot Act was branded a terrorist by the Bush administration and the whole of the Republican Congressional contingent.

Read my post above for links to more info on Bush secretive, deceptive administraiton. Don't confuse this issue with 9/11. Haven't you people misused that tragedy enough? The question isn't whether or not Kerry will roll back any laws. The fact is that this all occured under the Bush administraiton and a Republican majority Congress.

Perhaps the reason you don't hear Kerry talk is you're watching Fox. Try C-Span or LinkTV. Most of the Republican owned and operated Michael Powell eviscerated media doesn't cover Kerry. Although they did allow him coverage in Philadelphia on Monday for a few minutes before cutting away to their talking heads.

They do cover the daily hate from Bush. More lies.

Agency Disavows Report on Iraq Arms

More secrecy.

Delay in CIA report smells of base politics

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

There's no proof that 380 tons is missing either but you leap to believe that.

There is tons of evidence that they are missing.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

There's no proof that 380 tons is missing either but you leap to believe that.

"Administration officials said Sunday that the Iraq Survey Group, the C.I.A. task force that searched for unconventional weapons, has been ordered to investigate the disappearance of the explosives."

Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

Is the "administration" in the habit of having the Iraq Survey Group and the C.I.A. investigate fictitous disappearances?

On whether or not the Al QaQaa facility held weapons.

Al Qa Qaa

The weapons were there. The Bush administration took them out of a controlled, monitored environment by lyng America into a baseless invasion and with full knowledge of their existence allowed high density explosives to be looted from Al QaQaa.

This adminstration is criminally incompetent to the point of being dangerous. Get them out of there before they do even more harm.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

There's no proof that 380 tons is missing either but you leap to believe that.

There is tons of evidence that they are missing.

Conjur,

They won't listen to facts. The links you posted last night debunked this ridiculous White House attempt at damage control. They don't hear facts. They're brainwashed.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

There's no proof that 380 tons is missing either but you leap to believe that.

The proof is in the links we provide. Read them. And please try to provide some links to back up your claims sometime. Otherwise it's just more unsubstantiated opinion.

And we have more than enough of that from the Bush administration.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

There's no proof that 380 tons is missing either but you leap to believe that.

There is tons of evidence that they are missing.

The most reliable American news source:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb.../explosives_10-27.html

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

Statements from people in the administration? An administration proven to be the most secretive and deceptive in history? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off for the next 15 minutes.

Yet you believe a random news report. You choose what you want to believe. And there is no proof this administration has been secretive either. Thats just an OPINION. Do me a favor and find me a news report that says this :

An administration proven to be the most secretive and deceptive in history?

Good luck with your proof.

:Q :Q :Q


WTF?


Have you been living under a rock for the last four years???


Seriously, have you?



Start reading

ABC's Sam Donaldson talks at Albion College

?I think (the White House press corps) is trying to do a good job,? he said. ?This president is the most secretive president in my lifetime. Presidents or politicians or people have to try to actually answer the questions.?

John Dean, part of the Nixon administration, called the Bush admin's secrecy "Worse than Watergate" and wrote a book with that same title about it.

Hmm so since Bush wont talk to a guy at ABC the administration is hiding secrets from everyone. Bush has done many more interviews than kerry has done. Bush isn't afraid to answer questions unlike Kerry it seems. Kerry wont even go on interviews dont by certain democrats. This guy could be considered JUST as secretive. Another example of you wanting to believe something. That secrecy report is done by a democratic group, and even this doesn't prove your point.

An administration proven to be the most secretive and deceptive in history?

Who's to say they aren't pushing these laws due to security? Whats even funny, is a good portion of those laws were enacted by congress! Bush cannot force congress to vote a certain way. I'm not suprised people can't take you serioulsy conjur. You go to great lengths to exaggerate any negativity towards bush.

The idea that the Bush administration is in any way open is simply false propaganda. Bush signed an executive order to seal papers from the Reagan adminstration through his, hopefully, one term.

Critics Blast Bush Order on Papers

Bush has had the fewest press conferences of any president in memory. Touting his openess in doing interviews with a compliant press, which amount to no more than free campaign commercials, while Bush is ducking press conferences and excluding follow-up questions is hypocirsy defined.

Bush's news conferences are scripted.

Scripted Press Conferences and the Lapdog Media

Here are a few lines from his last press conference. Notice the White House site doesn't include the date. It was April 14, 2004.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...04/04/20040413-20.html

[]Let's see --

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a minute. Oh, Jim.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: I've got some "must calls," I'm sorry.


[]Bush reading from list on podium, "Let's see here. Judy."


And the infamous,

[]Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: "I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet."


Bush has had just 15 solo news conferences during his presidency. But he's had plenty of interviews?

That's funny. :laugh:

Let's not forget, the Bush administration has a history of distortion. For example: IRAQ.

Did George W. Bush Invade Iraq by Lying?

This administration is secretive and deceptive at a level never seen in any administration in U.S. history.
I cannot fathom the willingness of so many Americans to simply accept their propaganda.
Please, America, come back from Bushworld and recognize the facts.

This is indeed "An administration proven to be the most secretive and deceptive in history."

Ahh do you notice Bush said our intelligence? All of his reasons for going into Iraq were based on intelligence, intelligence CONGRESS knew about. Intelligence congress knew going back to 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

The problem was with faulty intelligence. The same intelligence that was fault under Clinton. So you could blame Clinton just as much as Bush for having faulty intelligence, Bush was the only one who acted on it though.

Bush has done more interviews on TV shows, not press conferences. He is more willing to talk to people than Kerry. Even if it was scripted, why can't Kerry do the same? Why can't he speak to us. In a political sense he's hurting himself by not doing more interviews so we can so who this man really is. The more you get to know the person the more you can dislike/like him. I think a lot of people know who Bush is, like or dislike him. But when Kerry won't do one on one interviews with well respected democrats, what is that saying? I got nothing against the guy, I just think politically it's hurting him. Kerry wouldn't even do an interview with Bob Woodward, the guy who uncovered watergate, even when he sent questions before hand. If Bush was doing the same I'd be saying the same thing. Now I must admit Woodward admitting this on a slightly biased show O'reilly, but the guy is a known democrat and writer at the washington post.

i]Senator Kerry has refused to appear on The Factor, and has avoided serious interviews with other networks and journalists. Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, who asked President Bush answered "hundreds" of his questions, has also been unable to obtain an interview with Senator Kerry. Even though he submitted written questions he received no response Woodward told The Factor it matters because "we are electing a commander-in-chief, and knowing how that person functions is critical ... we know what Bush would do, but Kerry has not had an executive position." The Factor contended that "it says a lot about Kerry that he turned both of us down."[/i]





Now you give one article criticising Bush's secrecy and they become the most secret administration in history? Thats a big leap of faith. Almost a blind one. It seems you really want to believe.

"An administration proven to be the most secretive and deceptive in history."

You can't prove this from an unbiased source. It's a flawed message full of opinion. Thats the problem I had with it, it's unprovable. It's like saying Clinton was the best president ever. While there might be articles out there proving he did an amazing job and did a lot of great things, there no way to actually prove it. It's a opinion.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

There's no proof that 380 tons is missing either but you leap to believe that.

There is tons of evidence that they are missing.

Conjur,

They won't listen to facts. The links you posted last night debunked this ridiculous White House attempt at damage control. They don't hear facts. They're brainwashed.

The question is when. And no one really knows when.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison
The question is when. And no one really knows when.

Oh, really?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10...f=login&oref=login

Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday...

...Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.

The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.

But the accounts make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing the Iraqi forces to abandon it.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

There's no proof that 380 tons is missing either but you leap to believe that.

There is tons of evidence that they are missing.

Conjur,

They won't listen to facts. The links you posted last night debunked this ridiculous White House attempt at damage control. They don't hear facts. They're brainwashed.

The question is when. And no one really knows when.

The material didn't disappear until after Bush concocted his baseless invasion of Iraq. No one knows where the material is now or who has it. Bush is at fault for failing to plan for the aftermath of his unnecessary invaion or to secure known ammo dumps in Iraq.

Period. End of story.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison
The question is when. And no one really knows when.

Oh, really?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10...f=login&oref=login

Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday...

...Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.

The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.

But the accounts make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing the Iraqi forces to abandon it.

missing explosives overstated

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I believe it? There's no proof!

There's no proof that 380 tons is missing either but you leap to believe that.

There is tons of evidence that they are missing.

Conjur,

They won't listen to facts. The links you posted last night debunked this ridiculous White House attempt at damage control. They don't hear facts. They're brainwashed.

The question is when. And no one really knows when.

The material didn't disappear until after Bush concocted his baseless invasion of Iraq. No one knows where the material is now or who has it. Bush is at fault for failing to plan for the aftermath of his unnecessary invaion or to secure known ammo dumps in Iraq.

Period. End of story.

Yeah but before the invasion Saddam had the weapons, are you saying that the explosives are safer in Saddam's hands or in American hands ?

 

[NightCrawler]

BUMP

I've updated the first post with links

I've updated the first post with links

I've updated the first post with links

 

[Siddhartha]

Why the US invaded Iraq:

1st rationale:

Saddam has WMD and can attack in 45 minutes!!!!
Saddam was connected with the 8/11/01 attacks!!
Saddam was working to producing nuclear weapons. They ordered aluminum tubes and were buying or wanted to buy dirt from Niger

Truth: Saddam did not have WMD and was not a threat. Saddam was not connected with the 9/11/01 attacks. The tubes would not have worked in a centrifuge. The Niger dirt story was made up or enhanced.

2nd rationale:

Saddam was thinking about getting nukes. An al Qada person received health care in Iraq.

Truth:
Sounds like grasping at straws to me.

Latest rationale (this thread)

Saddam had a lot of conventional weapons, guns, bullets, artillery shells, etc!!!!

Truth: almost every country on earth has a lot of conventional weapons.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
BUMP

I've updated the first post with links

I've updated the first post with links

I've updated the first post with links

I don't see this in your first post:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10...f=login&oref=login

Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday...

...Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.

The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.

But the accounts make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing the Iraqi forces to abandon it.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
How many tons went uncollected ?

I bet Saddam hide a lot of the weapons in secret places all over the country.

Of course! The real question is, why didn't the Bush admin foresee and then plan for this? WHY NOT??

Cause when you fight an enemy that has x000 tons of weapons they can hide them if they want *before* you invade. What the hell would Bush have done to prevent this ?

Saddam wasn't stupid !!!

But Bush was apparently. Maybe we should have voted for Saddam?

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
BUMP

I've updated the first post with links

I've updated the first post with links

I've updated the first post with links

I don't see this in your first post:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10...f=login&oref=login

Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday...

...Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.

The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.

But the accounts make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing the Iraqi forces to abandon it.

The New York Times and CBS both suck, I won't quote any stories from news outlets that are just extensions of DNC and the committee to elect John Kerry.

I no longer watch CBS either.

CBS = can't believe sh*t or can't believe story

 

[conjur]

LMAO!!


Tinfoil hat is on awfully tight tonight, isn't it, NightCrawler?

 

[christoph83]

Copying my post from the other thread here.

Not only that, this was bound to happen. There were so many compounds over Iraq that had possible weapons, while baghdad was still not under control. Not having enough troops is a valid opinion. But I think these guys jobs were to first take over baghdad together and regain controll of Iraq.

The troops made a limited search before moving on, finding bombs and other munitions but no chemical weapons, Wellman said. link

Splitting up troops all over Iraq to check all of these compounds could have left them up for ambush. Even with more troops it's not as safe, especially when they want as many people to take over bahgdad. Not to mention even with the possibility these were lost they still have destroyed many weapons.

Ereli said coalition forces have cleared 10,033 weapons caches and destroyed 243,000 tons of munitions. Another 162,898 tons of munitions are at secure locations and awaiting destruction, he said. link

So declaring a total failure weapon wise in Iraq is absurd. Did they make some mistakes, maybe. Even then troops stopped by on April 4th made note and went for baghdad. Then after taking controll, which was 5 days later they immediatly went back to the compound to find out what was going on. So they obviously knew it was important, but gaining control of Iraq was the biggest part. Bringing in people to transfer the weapons and disarm them while they don't even have complete control of the country is just stupid.

This last article is interesting as it basically debunks this whole missing weapons story, or confuses it atleast =P .

UN weapons inspectors went repeatedly to the vast al Qa Qaa complex, most recently on March 8. But they found nothing during spot visits to some of the 1,100 buildings at the site 40 kilometres south of Baghdad.
Article is dated April 05 2003. And this coming from the LA Times. So according to the U.N ...there were no weapons there to begin with.

Not to mention ...

Yesterday, troops at a training facility in the western Iraqi desert came across a bottle labelled "tabun," a nerve gas and chemical weapon Iraq is banned from possessing.

Closer to Baghdad, troops at Iraq's largest military industrial complex found nerve agent antidotes, documents describing chemical warfare and a white powder that appeared to be used for explosives.

 

[conjur]

Scott McCellan was sending mixed messages in his press conference.

He only once referred to the 243,000 tons and 163,000 tons of munitions. The rest of his responses left out the word "tons" and he referred only to 243,000 munitions.


Hmmm...